What John Scalzi said, after noting that despite the opinion of some people, not everywhere in the world is covered by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:
this person is just absolutely, completely, ice-pick-to the-eyeballs wrong in their understanding of the First Amendment, how it applies to my site, and how it applies to the Internet. Reading this person’s understanding of how the First Amendment applies in these instances is like being slathered in a thick coat of ignorant, and then being put out into the sun to dry out before a second coat is applied, which itself will be topped off by a sealant of complete and utter stupid, and lightly drizzled with a glistening varnish of epic fail.
He then goes into detail about exactly why the particular person is so monumentally wrong, but it basically comes down to the difference between interactions between private persons and interactions between private persons and persons acting as agents of a government. Freedom of the press (in those countries where such a principle is accepted) is the freedom of persons to obtain a press and operate it without censorship or other interference from the government: there is no obligation upon the owner/operator of a free press to publish anything that they find unacceptable.
Private individuals are NOT obliged to suffer the free speech of others whenever those others wish to inflict it upon them (one can always walk away from such a person in public, or eject them from one’s private property), and neither are private individuals obliged to post the free speech of others expressed on flyers or posters on their front door. A website has no obligation to publish the free speech of others either – those others can always obtain their own free press/blog and publish their own speech to their heart’s content.